Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 86 | 50.40 ± 13.00 (25 - 74) | 50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74) | 50.51 ± 12.87 (28 - 73) | 0.936 |
gender | 86 | 0.476 | |||
f | 61 (71%) | 29 (67%) | 32 (74%) | ||
m | 25 (29%) | 14 (33%) | 11 (26%) | ||
occupation | 86 | 0.902 | |||
day_training | 2 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 10 (12%) | 5 (12%) | 5 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 6 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
other | 2 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
part_time | 15 (17%) | 7 (16%) | 8 (19%) | ||
retired | 21 (24%) | 10 (23%) | 11 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 4 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
student | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
unemploy | 23 (27%) | 13 (30%) | 10 (23%) | ||
marital | 86 | 0.686 | |||
cohabitation | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
divore | 10 (12%) | 7 (16%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
in_relationship | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
married | 22 (26%) | 10 (23%) | 12 (28%) | ||
none | 46 (53%) | 22 (51%) | 24 (56%) | ||
seperation | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
edu | 86 | 0.789 | |||
bachelor | 25 (29%) | 9 (21%) | 16 (37%) | ||
diploma | 18 (21%) | 11 (26%) | 7 (16%) | ||
hd_ad | 3 (3.5%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 7 (8.1%) | 4 (9.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
primary | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 10 (12%) | 6 (14%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 16 (19%) | 8 (19%) | 8 (19%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 2 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
fam_income | 86 | 0.890 | |||
10001_12000 | 4 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
12001_14000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (5.8%) | 2 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | ||
16001_18000 | 3 (3.5%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (4.7%) | ||
18001_20000 | 4 (4.7%) | 3 (7.0%) | 1 (2.3%) | ||
20001_above | 14 (16%) | 7 (16%) | 7 (16%) | ||
2001_4000 | 13 (15%) | 9 (21%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
4001_6000 | 10 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | 6 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 9 (10%) | 5 (12%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
8001_10000 | 7 (8.1%) | 3 (7.0%) | 4 (9.3%) | ||
below_2000 | 12 (14%) | 6 (14%) | 6 (14%) | ||
medication | 86 | 76 (88%) | 39 (91%) | 37 (86%) | 0.501 |
onset_duration | 86 | 15.31 ± 10.90 (0 - 56) | 16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56) | 13.97 ± 9.56 (0 - 35) | 0.255 |
onset_age | 86 | 35.09 ± 14.00 (14 - 64) | 33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58) | 36.55 ± 15.09 (15 - 64) | 0.337 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 861 | control, N = 431 | treatment, N = 431 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 86 | 3.07 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 3.05 ± 1.17 (1 - 5) | 0.858 |
recovery_stage_b | 86 | 18.03 ± 2.64 (9 - 23) | 17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23) | 18.21 ± 2.53 (13 - 23) | 0.543 |
ras_confidence | 86 | 30.17 ± 4.73 (19 - 43) | 29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40) | 30.72 ± 5.12 (20 - 43) | 0.286 |
ras_willingness | 86 | 12.23 ± 1.94 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15) | 12.40 ± 2.01 (7 - 15) | 0.439 |
ras_goal | 86 | 17.63 ± 2.86 (12 - 24) | 17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24) | 17.77 ± 2.93 (12 - 24) | 0.653 |
ras_reliance | 86 | 13.09 ± 2.80 (8 - 20) | 12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18) | 13.21 ± 3.00 (8 - 20) | 0.702 |
ras_domination | 86 | 9.93 ± 2.33 (3 - 15) | 10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15) | 9.44 ± 2.30 (3 - 14) | 0.051 |
symptom | 86 | 30.36 ± 9.77 (14 - 56) | 31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55) | 28.77 ± 9.47 (15 - 56) | 0.131 |
slof_work | 86 | 22.85 ± 4.85 (10 - 30) | 22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30) | 23.16 ± 5.25 (10 - 30) | 0.552 |
slof_relationship | 86 | 25.85 ± 5.89 (11 - 35) | 25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35) | 26.58 ± 5.80 (11 - 35) | 0.251 |
satisfaction | 86 | 20.60 ± 6.70 (5 - 32) | 18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29) | 22.35 ± 6.53 (5 - 32) | 0.015 |
mhc_emotional | 86 | 11.20 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17) | 11.72 ± 3.98 (4 - 18) | 0.197 |
mhc_social | 86 | 15.06 ± 5.24 (6 - 30) | 15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30) | 14.98 ± 5.28 (6 - 26) | 0.886 |
mhc_psychological | 86 | 22.15 ± 5.86 (6 - 36) | 21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36) | 22.74 ± 6.26 (6 - 36) | 0.351 |
resilisnce | 86 | 16.65 ± 4.47 (6 - 27) | 16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24) | 17.02 ± 4.78 (7 - 27) | 0.444 |
social_provision | 86 | 13.72 ± 2.84 (5 - 20) | 13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20) | 14.19 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 0.130 |
els_value_living | 86 | 17.15 ± 2.90 (5 - 25) | 16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22) | 17.79 ± 3.26 (5 - 25) | 0.040 |
els_life_fulfill | 86 | 12.66 ± 3.27 (4 - 20) | 11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17) | 13.79 ± 3.12 (4 - 20) | 0.001 |
els | 86 | 29.81 ± 5.58 (9 - 45) | 28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36) | 31.58 ± 5.96 (9 - 45) | 0.003 |
social_connect | 86 | 26.87 ± 9.17 (8 - 48) | 27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45) | 25.91 ± 10.02 (8 - 48) | 0.332 |
shs_agency | 86 | 14.62 ± 4.76 (3 - 24) | 13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21) | 15.49 ± 5.06 (3 - 24) | 0.089 |
shs_pathway | 86 | 16.58 ± 3.88 (4 - 24) | 16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24) | 17.14 ± 4.01 (4 - 23) | 0.184 |
shs | 86 | 31.20 ± 8.17 (7 - 47) | 29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45) | 32.63 ± 8.51 (7 - 47) | 0.105 |
esteem | 86 | 12.69 ± 1.52 (10 - 18) | 12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18) | 12.44 ± 1.44 (10 - 16) | 0.137 |
mlq_search | 86 | 15.02 ± 3.23 (3 - 21) | 14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21) | 15.19 ± 3.42 (3 - 21) | 0.643 |
mlq_presence | 86 | 13.57 ± 4.09 (3 - 21) | 13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21) | 13.81 ± 4.49 (3 - 21) | 0.583 |
mlq | 86 | 28.59 ± 6.51 (6 - 42) | 28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40) | 29.00 ± 7.14 (6 - 42) | 0.565 |
empower | 86 | 19.44 ± 4.03 (6 - 28) | 18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24) | 19.93 ± 4.51 (6 - 28) | 0.264 |
ismi_resistance | 86 | 14.78 ± 2.59 (5 - 20) | 14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19) | 15.14 ± 2.93 (5 - 20) | 0.199 |
ismi_discrimation | 86 | 11.44 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19) | 10.47 ± 3.12 (5 - 19) | 0.003 |
sss_affective | 86 | 10.03 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18) | 9.51 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.194 |
sss_behavior | 86 | 9.67 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.95 ± 3.75 (3 - 18) | 0.091 |
sss_cognitive | 86 | 8.26 ± 3.77 (3 - 18) | 8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18) | 7.86 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 0.333 |
sss | 86 | 27.97 ± 10.62 (9 - 54) | 29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54) | 26.33 ± 10.60 (9 - 54) | 0.153 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.09 | 0.179 | 2.74, 3.44 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.047 | 0.254 | -0.544, 0.451 | 0.855 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.209 | 0.261 | -0.302, 0.721 | 0.425 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.262 | 0.372 | -0.467, 0.991 | 0.484 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.417 | 17.0, 18.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.349 | 0.590 | -0.807, 1.51 | 0.555 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.351 | 0.569 | -1.47, 0.763 | 0.539 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.974 | 0.811 | -0.616, 2.56 | 0.234 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 0.752 | 28.2, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 1.064 | -0.992, 3.18 | 0.307 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.781 | -1.16, 1.90 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.11 | 1.115 | -1.08, 3.29 | 0.326 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.305 | 11.5, 12.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.431 | -0.519, 1.17 | 0.452 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.863 | 0.311 | -1.47, -0.253 | 0.008 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.949 | 0.445 | 0.077, 1.82 | 0.038 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.468 | 16.6, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.279 | 0.661 | -1.02, 1.57 | 0.674 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.724 | 0.523 | -1.75, 0.301 | 0.172 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.61 | 0.747 | 0.146, 3.07 | 0.035 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.0 | 0.432 | 12.1, 13.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.233 | 0.611 | -0.966, 1.43 | 0.704 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.204 | 0.425 | -0.629, 1.04 | 0.634 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.13 | 0.607 | -0.061, 2.32 | 0.068 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.036 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.346 | 9.74, 11.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.977 | 0.489 | -1.94, -0.018 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.629 | 0.434 | -1.48, 0.221 | 0.153 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.76 | 0.619 | 0.542, 2.97 | 0.006 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 32.0 | 1.483 | 29.0, 34.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.19 | 2.097 | -7.30, 0.923 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.225 | 1.131 | -1.99, 2.44 | 0.843 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.78 | 1.615 | -4.95, 1.38 | 0.275 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.040 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.5 | 0.747 | 21.1, 24.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.628 | 1.057 | -1.44, 2.70 | 0.554 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.424 | 0.650 | -1.70, 0.849 | 0.517 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.215 | 0.928 | -2.04, 1.60 | 0.817 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.1 | 0.898 | 23.4, 26.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.47 | 1.270 | -1.02, 3.96 | 0.252 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.28 | 0.845 | -2.94, 0.371 | 0.135 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.52 | 1.206 | -0.843, 3.89 | 0.213 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.034 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 18.9 | 1.033 | 16.8, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.49 | 1.461 | 0.624, 6.35 | 0.019 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.716 | 1.166 | -1.57, 3.00 | 0.542 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.065 | 1.665 | -3.33, 3.20 | 0.969 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.064 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.567 | 9.56, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.05 | 0.801 | -0.524, 2.62 | 0.195 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.400 | 0.536 | -0.651, 1.45 | 0.459 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.558 | 0.766 | -2.06, 0.944 | 0.470 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.845 | 13.5, 16.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.163 | 1.195 | -2.51, 2.18 | 0.892 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.657 | 0.923 | -1.15, 2.47 | 0.480 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.459 | 1.319 | -3.04, 2.13 | 0.729 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.953 | 19.7, 23.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.19 | 1.348 | -1.46, 3.83 | 0.381 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.449 | 0.989 | -1.49, 2.39 | 0.651 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.131 | 1.413 | -2.90, 2.64 | 0.926 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.672 | 15.0, 17.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.951 | -1.12, 2.61 | 0.436 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.028 | 0.701 | -1.35, 1.40 | 0.969 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.17 | 1.002 | -0.794, 3.13 | 0.248 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.442 | 12.4, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.930 | 0.626 | -0.296, 2.16 | 0.140 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.868 | 0.511 | -1.87, 0.134 | 0.095 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.01 | 0.730 | -0.421, 2.44 | 0.172 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.452 | 15.6, 17.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.28 | 0.640 | 0.026, 2.53 | 0.048 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.067 | 0.483 | -1.01, 0.880 | 0.890 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.509 | 0.690 | -0.844, 1.86 | 0.464 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.5 | 0.465 | 10.6, 12.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.26 | 0.658 | 0.966, 3.55 | 0.001 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.844 | 0.452 | -0.042, 1.73 | 0.068 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.518 | 0.646 | -1.78, 0.748 | 0.426 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.112 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.0 | 0.833 | 26.4, 29.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 3.53 | 1.178 | 1.23, 5.84 | 0.003 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.729 | 0.793 | -0.825, 2.28 | 0.362 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.066 | 1.132 | -2.15, 2.29 | 0.954 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.100 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.8 | 1.437 | 25.0, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.93 | 2.032 | -5.91, 2.05 | 0.345 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.13 | 1.257 | -1.34, 3.59 | 0.374 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.49 | 1.796 | -6.01, 1.03 | 0.171 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.733 | 12.3, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.74 | 1.037 | -0.287, 3.78 | 0.096 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.114 | 0.736 | -1.33, 1.56 | 0.877 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.512 | 1.051 | -1.55, 2.57 | 0.628 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.041 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.0 | 0.588 | 14.9, 17.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.12 | 0.832 | -0.515, 2.75 | 0.183 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.184 | 0.582 | -0.956, 1.32 | 0.753 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.267 | 0.830 | -1.89, 1.36 | 0.749 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 1.246 | 27.3, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.86 | 1.762 | -0.592, 6.31 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.298 | 1.206 | -2.07, 2.66 | 0.806 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.259 | 1.722 | -3.12, 3.63 | 0.881 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.032 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.9 | 0.213 | 12.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.488 | 0.302 | -1.08, 0.103 | 0.108 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.050 | 0.318 | -0.673, 0.573 | 0.876 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.372 | 0.453 | -0.517, 1.26 | 0.417 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.022 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.502 | 13.9, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.326 | 0.709 | -1.06, 1.72 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.194 | 0.575 | -1.32, 0.933 | 0.738 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.177 | 0.820 | -1.78, 1.43 | 0.830 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.628 | 12.1, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.488 | 0.888 | -1.25, 2.23 | 0.583 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.055 | 0.686 | -1.29, 1.40 | 0.937 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.049 | 0.979 | -1.97, 1.87 | 0.960 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.2 | 1.017 | 26.2, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.814 | 1.438 | -2.01, 3.63 | 0.573 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.149 | 1.116 | -2.34, 2.04 | 0.894 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.216 | 1.593 | -3.34, 2.91 | 0.893 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.625 | 17.7, 20.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.977 | 0.884 | -0.756, 2.71 | 0.272 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.086 | 0.571 | -1.21, 1.03 | 0.882 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.277 | 0.816 | -1.88, 1.32 | 0.736 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.382 | 13.7, 15.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.721 | 0.541 | -0.339, 1.78 | 0.185 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.046 | 0.496 | -1.02, 0.926 | 0.926 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.138 | 0.708 | -1.25, 1.52 | 0.846 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.471 | 11.5, 13.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.95 | 0.666 | -3.26, -0.649 | 0.004 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.564 | 0.475 | -1.49, 0.367 | 0.240 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.789 | 0.678 | -0.540, 2.12 | 0.250 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.073 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.547 | 9.49, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.05 | 0.774 | -2.56, 0.470 | 0.179 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.029 | 0.519 | -1.05, 0.988 | 0.955 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.06 | 0.742 | -2.51, 0.393 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.047 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.581 | 9.26, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.44 | 0.821 | -3.05, 0.168 | 0.082 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.156 | 0.582 | -1.30, 0.985 | 0.790 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.604 | 0.831 | -2.23, 1.03 | 0.471 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.049 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.65 | 0.565 | 7.54, 9.76 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.791 | 0.799 | -2.36, 0.776 | 0.325 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.912 | 0.502 | -0.072, 1.90 | 0.075 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.79 | 0.718 | -3.20, -0.383 | 0.016 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.048 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.576 | 26.5, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -3.28 | 2.228 | -7.65, 1.09 | 0.144 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.760 | 1.356 | -1.90, 3.42 | 0.577 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.45 | 1.937 | -7.25, 0.343 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.44], t(127) = 17.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.45], t(127) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.72], t(127) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.61])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.99], t(127) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.84])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(127) = 42.82, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.51], t(127) = 0.59, p = 0.554; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.76], t(127) = -0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.56], t(127) = 1.20, p = 0.230; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.15, 31.10], t(127) = 39.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.99, 3.18], t(127) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.90], t(127) = 0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 3.29], t(127) = 0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.67], t(127) = 39.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.17], t(127) = 0.76, p = 0.450; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-1.47, -0.25], t(127) = -2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.73, -0.13])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [0.08, 1.82], t(127) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.04, 0.90])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.57, 18.40], t(127) = 37.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.57], t(127) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.30], t(127) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.61, 95% CI [0.15, 3.07], t(127) = 2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [0.05, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.13, 13.82], t(127) = 30.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.97, 1.43], t(127) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.04], t(127) = 0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.32], t(127) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(127) = 30.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.94, -0.02], t(127) = -2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.85, -7.75e-03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.48, 0.22], t(127) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.76, 95% CI [0.54, 2.97], t(127) = 2.84, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.77, 95% CI [0.24, 1.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.05, 34.86], t(127) = 21.55, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.19, 95% CI [-7.30, 0.92], t(127) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.09])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.44], t(127) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.78, 95% CI [-4.95, 1.38], t(127) = -1.10, p = 0.270; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.14])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.03e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(127) = 30.16, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.70], t(127) = 0.59, p = 0.552; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.70, 0.85], t(127) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.04, 1.60], t(127) = -0.23, p = 0.816; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.36, 26.88], t(127) = 27.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.96], t(127) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.37], t(127) = -1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.52, 95% CI [-0.84, 3.89], t(127) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.84, 20.89], t(127) = 18.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.49, 95% CI [0.62, 6.35], t(127) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.09, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.57, 3.00], t(127) = 0.61, p = 0.539; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-3.33, 3.20], t(127) = -0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = -9.26e-03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(127) = 18.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.52, 2.62], t(127) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.45], t(127) = 0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-2.06, 0.94], t(127) = -0.73, p = 0.467; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.67e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.48, 16.80], t(127) = 17.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-2.51, 2.18], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.40])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.15, 2.47], t(127) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.45])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.04, 2.13], t(127) = -0.35, p = 0.728; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.69, 23.43], t(127) = 22.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 3.83], t(127) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.39], t(127) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-2.90, 2.64], t(127) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(127) = 24.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.61], t(127) = 0.78, p = 0.434; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.40], t(127) = 0.04, p = 0.969; Std. beta = 6.26e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.17, 95% CI [-0.79, 3.13], t(127) = 1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.71])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(127) = 29.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.16], t(127) = 1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-1.87, 0.13], t(127) = -1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 2.44], t(127) = 1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.81])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.63, 17.40], t(127) = 36.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.28, 95% CI [0.03, 2.53], t(127) = 2.00, p = 0.046; Std. beta = 0.42, 95% CI [8.38e-03, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.88], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.86], t(127) = 0.74, p = 0.461; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(127) = 24.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.26, 95% CI [0.97, 3.55], t(127) = 3.43, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.73], t(127) = 1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.78, 0.75], t(127) = -0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.68], t(127) = 33.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.53, 95% CI [1.23, 5.84], t(127) = 3.00, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.62, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.28], t(127) = 0.92, p = 0.358; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.29], t(127) = 0.06, p = 0.953; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.40])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.02, 30.65], t(127) = 19.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.93, 95% CI [-5.91, 2.05], t(127) = -0.95, p = 0.342; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-1.34, 3.59], t(127) = 0.90, p = 0.370; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.49, 95% CI [-6.01, 1.03], t(127) = -1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(127) = 18.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.74, 95% CI [-0.29, 3.78], t(127) = 1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.56], t(127) = 0.16, p = 0.877; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.55, 2.57], t(127) = 0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(127) = 27.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.75], t(127) = 1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.32], t(127) = 0.32, p = 0.751; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.89, 1.36], t(127) = -0.32, p = 0.748; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.33, 32.21], t(127) = 23.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.86, 95% CI [-0.59, 6.31], t(127) = 1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.66], t(127) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.63], t(127) = 0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.28) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(127) = 60.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.10], t(127) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.07])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.57], t(127) = -0.16, p = 0.875; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.26], t(127) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.88, 15.84], t(127) = 29.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.72], t(127) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.52])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.32, 0.93], t(127) = -0.34, p = 0.736; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.43], t(127) = -0.22, p = 0.830; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.44])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.56], t(127) = 21.23, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.23], t(127) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.40], t(127) = 0.08, p = 0.937; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.87], t(127) = -0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.19, 30.18], t(127) = 27.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-2.01, 3.63], t(127) = 0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-2.34, 2.04], t(127) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-3.34, 2.91], t(127) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.43])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(127) = 30.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.71], t(127) = 1.10, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.66])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.21, 1.03], t(127) = -0.15, p = 0.881; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.32], t(127) = -0.34, p = 0.735; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(127) = 37.71, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.78], t(127) = 1.33, p = 0.182; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.93], t(127) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.37])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.52], t(127) = 0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.50, 13.34], t(127) = 26.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.95, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.65], t(127) = -2.94, p = 0.003; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.49, 0.37], t(127) = -1.19, p = 0.235; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.12], t(127) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.49, 11.63], t(127) = 19.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.56, 0.47], t(127) = -1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.99], t(127) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -7.95e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.51, 0.39], t(127) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.26, 11.53], t(127) = 17.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.44, 95% CI [-3.05, 0.17], t(127) = -1.76, p = 0.079; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.04])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.98], t(127) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.23, 1.03], t(127) = -0.73, p = 0.468; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.54, 9.76], t(127) = 15.31, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.36, 0.78], t(127) = -0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.21])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.90], t(127) = 1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.20, -0.38], t(127) = -2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.52, 32.69], t(127) = 18.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.28, 95% CI [-7.65, 1.09], t(127) = -1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.10])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.90, 3.42], t(127) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.45, 95% CI [-7.25, 0.34], t(127) = -1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 421.960 | 430.631 | -207.980 | 415.960 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 424.101 | 441.443 | -206.051 | 412.101 | 3.859 | 3 | 0.277 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 641.797 | 650.468 | -317.899 | 635.797 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 644.716 | 662.058 | -316.358 | 632.716 | 3.082 | 3 | 0.379 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 780.738 | 789.409 | -387.369 | 774.738 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 781.123 | 798.465 | -384.561 | 769.123 | 5.615 | 3 | 0.132 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 542.998 | 551.669 | -268.499 | 536.998 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 539.445 | 556.787 | -263.723 | 527.445 | 9.553 | 3 | 0.023 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 660.835 | 669.506 | -327.417 | 654.835 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 660.682 | 678.024 | -324.341 | 648.682 | 6.153 | 3 | 0.104 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 633.668 | 642.339 | -313.834 | 627.668 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 629.306 | 646.648 | -308.653 | 617.306 | 10.362 | 3 | 0.016 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 592.456 | 601.127 | -293.228 | 586.456 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 589.318 | 606.660 | -288.659 | 577.318 | 9.138 | 3 | 0.028 |
symptom | null | 3 | 934.270 | 942.941 | -464.135 | 928.270 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 935.119 | 952.461 | -461.559 | 923.119 | 5.151 | 3 | 0.161 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 760.092 | 768.764 | -377.046 | 754.092 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 764.377 | 781.719 | -376.188 | 752.377 | 1.716 | 3 | 0.633 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 818.953 | 827.624 | -406.477 | 812.953 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 820.091 | 837.433 | -404.045 | 808.091 | 4.862 | 3 | 0.182 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 873.354 | 882.025 | -433.677 | 867.354 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 872.375 | 889.717 | -430.188 | 860.375 | 6.979 | 3 | 0.073 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 694.094 | 702.766 | -344.047 | 688.094 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 698.099 | 715.441 | -343.049 | 686.099 | 1.996 | 3 | 0.573 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 810.940 | 819.611 | -402.470 | 804.940 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 816.298 | 833.640 | -402.149 | 804.298 | 0.642 | 3 | 0.887 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 839.236 | 847.907 | -416.618 | 833.236 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 844.108 | 861.450 | -416.054 | 832.108 | 1.128 | 3 | 0.770 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 750.014 | 758.685 | -372.007 | 744.014 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 751.733 | 769.075 | -369.866 | 739.733 | 4.281 | 3 | 0.233 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 649.972 | 658.643 | -321.986 | 643.972 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 648.526 | 665.868 | -318.263 | 636.526 | 7.445 | 3 | 0.059 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 648.623 | 657.294 | -321.311 | 642.623 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 648.213 | 665.556 | -318.107 | 636.213 | 6.409 | 3 | 0.093 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 656.511 | 665.182 | -325.255 | 650.511 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 647.948 | 665.290 | -317.974 | 635.948 | 14.563 | 3 | 0.002 |
els | null | 3 | 806.409 | 815.080 | -400.204 | 800.409 | |||
els | random | 6 | 801.031 | 818.373 | -394.516 | 789.031 | 11.377 | 3 | 0.010 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 936.659 | 945.330 | -465.329 | 930.659 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 938.841 | 956.183 | -463.420 | 926.841 | 3.818 | 3 | 0.282 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 769.964 | 778.635 | -381.982 | 763.964 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 771.541 | 788.883 | -379.771 | 759.541 | 4.423 | 3 | 0.219 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 707.596 | 716.267 | -350.798 | 701.596 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 711.746 | 729.088 | -349.873 | 699.746 | 1.850 | 3 | 0.604 |
shs | null | 3 | 906.836 | 915.508 | -450.418 | 900.836 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 909.518 | 926.860 | -448.759 | 897.518 | 3.318 | 3 | 0.345 |
esteem | null | 3 | 468.579 | 477.250 | -231.289 | 462.579 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 471.544 | 488.886 | -229.772 | 459.544 | 3.035 | 3 | 0.386 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 676.002 | 684.673 | -335.001 | 670.002 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 681.296 | 698.638 | -334.648 | 669.296 | 0.707 | 3 | 0.872 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 731.531 | 740.202 | -362.766 | 725.531 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 737.196 | 754.538 | -362.598 | 725.196 | 0.335 | 3 | 0.953 |
mlq | null | 3 | 860.333 | 869.004 | -427.166 | 854.333 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 865.891 | 883.234 | -426.946 | 853.891 | 0.441 | 3 | 0.932 |
empower | null | 3 | 716.785 | 725.456 | -355.393 | 710.785 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 721.223 | 738.565 | -354.612 | 709.223 | 1.562 | 3 | 0.668 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 614.739 | 623.410 | -304.369 | 608.739 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 618.256 | 635.598 | -303.128 | 606.256 | 2.483 | 3 | 0.478 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 656.936 | 665.607 | -325.468 | 650.936 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 654.070 | 671.412 | -321.035 | 642.070 | 8.866 | 3 | 0.031 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 690.599 | 699.270 | -342.299 | 684.599 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 689.047 | 706.389 | -338.524 | 677.047 | 7.552 | 3 | 0.056 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 709.411 | 718.083 | -351.706 | 703.411 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 709.444 | 726.786 | -348.722 | 697.444 | 5.968 | 3 | 0.113 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 694.898 | 703.569 | -344.449 | 688.898 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 691.995 | 709.337 | -339.998 | 679.995 | 8.903 | 3 | 0.031 |
sss | null | 3 | 963.918 | 972.590 | -478.959 | 957.918 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 961.911 | 979.253 | -474.955 | 949.911 | 8.008 | 3 | 0.046 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 43 | 3.09 ± 1.18 | 43 | 3.05 ± 1.18 | 0.855 | 0.047 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 24 | 3.30 ± 1.16 | -0.213 | 23 | 3.52 ± 1.16 | -0.479 | 0.526 | -0.219 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 43 | 17.86 ± 2.74 | 43 | 18.21 ± 2.74 | 0.555 | -0.165 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 24 | 17.51 ± 2.65 | 0.166 | 23 | 18.83 ± 2.65 | -0.295 | 0.090 | -0.626 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 43 | 29.63 ± 4.93 | 43 | 30.72 ± 4.93 | 0.307 | -0.389 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 24 | 29.99 ± 4.42 | -0.130 | 23 | 32.19 ± 4.39 | -0.524 | 0.090 | -0.783 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 43 | 12.07 ± 2.00 | 43 | 12.40 ± 2.00 | 0.452 | -0.291 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 24 | 11.21 ± 1.78 | 0.772 | 23 | 12.48 ± 1.77 | -0.077 | 0.015 | -1.140 |
ras_goal | 1st | 43 | 17.49 ± 3.07 | 43 | 17.77 ± 3.07 | 0.674 | -0.147 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 24 | 16.76 ± 2.81 | 0.382 | 23 | 18.65 ± 2.79 | -0.468 | 0.022 | -0.998 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 43 | 12.98 ± 2.83 | 43 | 13.21 ± 2.83 | 0.704 | -0.153 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 24 | 13.18 ± 2.50 | -0.134 | 23 | 14.54 ± 2.49 | -0.876 | 0.064 | -0.895 |
ras_domination | 1st | 43 | 10.42 ± 2.27 | 43 | 9.44 ± 2.27 | 0.048 | 0.614 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 24 | 9.79 ± 2.15 | 0.395 | 23 | 10.57 ± 2.14 | -0.707 | 0.216 | -0.489 |
symptom | 1st | 43 | 31.95 ± 9.72 | 43 | 28.77 ± 9.72 | 0.132 | 0.798 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 24 | 32.18 ± 8.11 | -0.056 | 23 | 27.21 ± 8.02 | 0.390 | 0.037 | 1.245 |
slof_work | 1st | 43 | 22.53 ± 4.90 | 43 | 23.16 ± 4.90 | 0.554 | -0.272 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 24 | 22.11 ± 4.20 | 0.184 | 23 | 22.52 ± 4.16 | 0.277 | 0.736 | -0.179 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 43 | 25.12 ± 5.89 | 43 | 26.58 ± 5.89 | 0.252 | -0.486 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 24 | 23.83 ± 5.14 | 0.426 | 23 | 26.82 ± 5.10 | -0.079 | 0.048 | -0.991 |
satisfaction | 1st | 43 | 18.86 ± 6.78 | 43 | 22.35 ± 6.78 | 0.019 | -0.825 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 24 | 19.58 ± 6.22 | -0.170 | 23 | 23.00 ± 6.19 | -0.154 | 0.061 | -0.810 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 43 | 10.67 ± 3.72 | 43 | 11.72 ± 3.72 | 0.195 | -0.546 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 24 | 11.07 ± 3.25 | -0.209 | 23 | 11.56 ± 3.22 | 0.082 | 0.606 | -0.255 |
mhc_social | 1st | 43 | 15.14 ± 5.54 | 43 | 14.98 ± 5.54 | 0.892 | 0.049 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 24 | 15.80 ± 5.04 | -0.197 | 23 | 15.17 ± 5.01 | -0.059 | 0.672 | 0.186 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 43 | 21.56 ± 6.25 | 43 | 22.74 ± 6.25 | 0.381 | -0.334 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 24 | 22.01 ± 5.60 | -0.126 | 23 | 23.06 ± 5.56 | -0.089 | 0.518 | -0.297 |
resilisnce | 1st | 43 | 16.28 ± 4.41 | 43 | 17.02 ± 4.41 | 0.436 | -0.295 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 24 | 16.31 ± 3.96 | -0.011 | 23 | 18.22 ± 3.93 | -0.474 | 0.099 | -0.758 |
social_provision | 1st | 43 | 13.26 ± 2.90 | 43 | 14.19 ± 2.90 | 0.140 | -0.501 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 24 | 12.39 ± 2.68 | 0.468 | 23 | 14.33 ± 2.67 | -0.076 | 0.014 | -1.045 |
els_value_living | 1st | 43 | 16.51 ± 2.97 | 43 | 17.79 ± 2.97 | 0.048 | -0.734 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 24 | 16.44 ± 2.68 | 0.038 | 23 | 18.23 ± 2.66 | -0.254 | 0.023 | -1.026 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 43 | 11.53 ± 3.05 | 43 | 13.79 ± 3.05 | 0.001 | -1.394 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 24 | 12.38 ± 2.69 | -0.522 | 23 | 14.12 ± 2.67 | -0.202 | 0.028 | -1.074 |
els | 1st | 43 | 28.05 ± 5.46 | 43 | 31.58 ± 5.46 | 0.003 | -1.248 | ||
els | 2nd | 24 | 28.78 ± 4.78 | -0.257 | 23 | 32.38 ± 4.75 | -0.281 | 0.011 | -1.272 |
social_connect | 1st | 43 | 27.84 ± 9.42 | 43 | 25.91 ± 9.42 | 0.345 | 0.432 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 24 | 28.96 ± 8.09 | -0.252 | 23 | 24.54 ± 8.01 | 0.306 | 0.062 | 0.990 |
shs_agency | 1st | 43 | 13.74 ± 4.81 | 43 | 15.49 ± 4.81 | 0.096 | -0.661 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 24 | 13.86 ± 4.27 | -0.043 | 23 | 16.11 ± 4.24 | -0.237 | 0.071 | -0.855 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 43 | 16.02 ± 3.86 | 43 | 17.14 ± 3.86 | 0.183 | -0.536 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 24 | 16.21 ± 3.41 | -0.088 | 23 | 17.06 ± 3.39 | 0.040 | 0.393 | -0.408 |
shs | 1st | 43 | 29.77 ± 8.17 | 43 | 32.63 ± 8.17 | 0.108 | -0.663 | ||
shs | 2nd | 24 | 30.07 ± 7.19 | -0.069 | 23 | 33.18 ± 7.13 | -0.129 | 0.138 | -0.723 |
esteem | 1st | 43 | 12.93 ± 1.40 | 43 | 12.44 ± 1.40 | 0.108 | 0.406 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 24 | 12.88 ± 1.39 | 0.042 | 23 | 12.76 ± 1.39 | -0.267 | 0.774 | 0.097 |
mlq_search | 1st | 43 | 14.86 ± 3.29 | 43 | 15.19 ± 3.29 | 0.647 | -0.156 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 24 | 14.67 ± 3.03 | 0.093 | 23 | 14.82 ± 3.02 | 0.178 | 0.866 | -0.071 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 43 | 13.33 ± 4.12 | 43 | 13.81 ± 4.12 | 0.583 | -0.197 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 24 | 13.38 ± 3.74 | -0.022 | 23 | 13.82 ± 3.72 | -0.002 | 0.687 | -0.177 |
mlq | 1st | 43 | 28.19 ± 6.67 | 43 | 29.00 ± 6.67 | 0.573 | -0.202 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 24 | 28.04 ± 6.07 | 0.037 | 23 | 28.64 ± 6.04 | 0.090 | 0.735 | -0.148 |
empower | 1st | 43 | 18.95 ± 4.10 | 43 | 19.93 ± 4.10 | 0.272 | -0.480 | ||
empower | 2nd | 24 | 18.87 ± 3.56 | 0.042 | 23 | 19.57 ± 3.52 | 0.178 | 0.499 | -0.344 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 43 | 14.42 ± 2.51 | 43 | 15.14 ± 2.51 | 0.185 | -0.394 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 24 | 14.37 ± 2.40 | 0.025 | 23 | 15.23 ± 2.39 | -0.050 | 0.221 | -0.470 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 43 | 12.42 ± 3.09 | 43 | 10.47 ± 3.09 | 0.004 | 1.147 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 24 | 11.85 ± 2.74 | 0.331 | 23 | 10.69 ± 2.73 | -0.132 | 0.147 | 0.684 |
sss_affective | 1st | 43 | 10.56 ± 3.59 | 43 | 9.51 ± 3.59 | 0.179 | 0.564 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 24 | 10.53 ± 3.14 | 0.016 | 23 | 8.42 ± 3.12 | 0.588 | 0.023 | 1.136 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 43 | 10.40 ± 3.81 | 43 | 8.95 ± 3.81 | 0.082 | 0.691 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 24 | 10.24 ± 3.38 | 0.075 | 23 | 8.19 ± 3.36 | 0.364 | 0.039 | 0.980 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 43 | 8.65 ± 3.71 | 43 | 7.86 ± 3.71 | 0.325 | 0.442 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 24 | 9.56 ± 3.19 | -0.511 | 23 | 6.98 ± 3.16 | 0.491 | 0.006 | 1.444 |
sss | 1st | 43 | 29.60 ± 10.33 | 43 | 26.33 ± 10.33 | 0.144 | 0.681 | ||
sss | 2nd | 24 | 30.36 ± 8.84 | -0.158 | 23 | 23.63 ± 8.75 | 0.559 | 0.010 | 1.399 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(121.46) = -0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.46)
2st
t(128.57) = 0.64, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.89)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(116.45) = 0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.52)
2st
t(128.57) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.21 to 2.85)
ras_confidence
1st
t(100.77) = 1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-1.02 to 3.20)
2st
t(128.57) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.74)
ras_willingness
1st
t(100.14) = 0.76, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.18)
2st
t(128.41) = 2.46, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (0.25 to 2.30)
ras_goal
1st
t(104.08) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.59)
2st
t(128.97) = 2.31, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -1.00, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.50)
ras_reliance
1st
t(98.72) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.45)
2st
t(127.90) = 1.87, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.80)
ras_domination
1st
t(110.55) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.95 to -0.01)
2st
t(128.81) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.46 to 2.02)
symptom
1st
t(92.21) = -1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-7.35 to 0.98)
2st
t(120.71) = -2.11, p = 0.037, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-9.63 to -0.31)
slof_work
1st
t(95.07) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.47 to 2.73)
2st
t(125.19) = 0.34, p = 0.736, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.00 to 2.83)
slof_relationship
1st
t(97.26) = 1.15, p = 0.252, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.99)
2st
t(127.11) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.03 to 5.94)
satisfaction
1st
t(104.53) = 2.39, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -0.83, 95% CI (0.59 to 6.39)
2st
t(128.99) = 1.89, p = 0.061, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.16 to 7.00)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(97.47) = 1.31, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.64)
2st
t(127.24) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.38 to 2.36)
mhc_social
1st
t(102.97) = -0.14, p = 0.892, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.53 to 2.21)
2st
t(128.91) = -0.42, p = 0.672, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.52 to 2.28)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(100.76) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.49 to 3.86)
2st
t(128.57) = 0.65, p = 0.518, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-2.17 to 4.28)
resilisnce
1st
t(100.96) = 0.78, p = 0.436, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.14 to 2.63)
2st
t(128.61) = 1.66, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.36 to 4.19)
social_provision
1st
t(105.73) = 1.49, p = 0.140, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.17)
2st
t(129.00) = 2.49, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -1.04, 95% CI (0.40 to 3.48)
els_value_living
1st
t(101.99) = 2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.01 to 2.55)
2st
t(128.79) = 2.29, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (0.25 to 3.33)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(98.33) = 3.43, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.39, 95% CI (0.95 to 3.56)
2st
t(127.72) = 2.23, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -1.07, 95% CI (0.19 to 3.28)
els
1st
t(97.65) = 3.00, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (1.20 to 5.87)
2st
t(127.35) = 2.59, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -1.27, 95% CI (0.85 to 6.35)
social_connect
1st
t(95.21) = -0.95, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.96 to 2.10)
2st
t(125.35) = -1.88, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.99, 95% CI (-9.07 to 0.23)
shs_agency
1st
t(99.50) = 1.68, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.31 to 3.80)
2st
t(128.21) = 1.82, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.20 to 4.71)
shs_pathway
1st
t(98.91) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.77)
2st
t(127.99) = 0.86, p = 0.393, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.81)
shs
1st
t(98.20) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-0.64 to 6.36)
2st
t(127.66) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-1.01 to 7.25)
esteem
1st
t(123.29) = -1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.11)
2st
t(128.62) = -0.29, p = 0.774, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.69)
mlq_search
1st
t(105.29) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.73)
2st
t(129.00) = 0.17, p = 0.866, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.89)
mlq_presence
1st
t(102.97) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 2.25)
2st
t(128.91) = 0.40, p = 0.687, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.72 to 2.59)
mlq
1st
t(103.16) = 0.57, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.67)
2st
t(128.92) = 0.34, p = 0.735, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.09)
empower
1st
t(96.41) = 1.10, p = 0.272, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.78 to 2.73)
2st
t(126.49) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.74)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(112.82) = 1.33, p = 0.185, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.79)
2st
t(128.70) = 1.23, p = 0.221, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.24)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(99.67) = -2.94, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 1.15, 95% CI (-3.27 to -0.63)
2st
t(128.27) = -1.46, p = 0.147, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-2.74 to 0.41)
sss_affective
1st
t(97.54) = -1.35, p = 0.179, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-2.58 to 0.49)
2st
t(127.29) = -2.31, p = 0.023, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-3.91 to -0.30)
sss_behavior
1st
t(99.41) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.07 to 0.19)
2st
t(128.18) = -2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-3.99 to -0.10)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(95.64) = -0.99, p = 0.325, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.38 to 0.80)
2st
t(125.80) = -2.78, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.42 to -0.75)
sss
1st
t(94.79) = -1.47, p = 0.144, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-7.70 to 1.14)
2st
t(124.87) = -2.62, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.40, 95% CI (-11.81 to -1.65)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(65.08) = 1.76, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.00)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(61.56) = 1.07, p = 0.578, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.79)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(52.95) = 1.84, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.13 to 3.07)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(52.65) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.73)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(54.62) = 1.65, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.96)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(51.95) = 3.06, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.46 to 2.21)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(58.06) = 2.53, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.02)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(48.84) = -1.35, p = 0.369, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-3.88 to 0.77)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(50.19) = -0.96, p = 0.681, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.70)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(51.24) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.50 to 1.97)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(54.85) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.74 to 3.05)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.34) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.26 to 0.94)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(54.06) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.70 to 2.09)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(52.95) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.71 to 2.35)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(53.05) = 1.67, p = 0.203, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.24 to 2.64)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(55.47) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.91 to 1.19)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(53.56) = 0.89, p = 0.751, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.44)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(51.76) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.26)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.43) = 0.98, p = 0.664, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.42)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(50.26) = -1.06, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.95 to 1.22)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(52.33) = 0.83, p = 0.820, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.89 to 2.14)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(52.04) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.28 to 1.11)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(51.70) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.92 to 3.03)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(66.59) = 0.99, p = 0.653, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.97)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(55.24) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.81)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(54.05) = 0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.40 to 1.41)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(54.15) = -0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.66 to 1.93)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(50.83) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.81)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(59.35) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.11)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(52.41) = 0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.20)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.38) = -2.05, p = 0.091, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.16 to -0.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(52.29) = -1.28, p = 0.416, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.96 to 0.44)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.47) = -1.71, p = 0.188, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.91 to 0.16)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(50.06) = -1.94, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-5.48 to 0.09)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(63.94) = 0.80, p = 0.857, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.73)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(60.63) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.79)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(52.53) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.94)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(52.24) = -2.76, p = 0.016, Cohen d = 0.77, 95% CI (-1.49 to -0.24)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(54.09) = -1.38, p = 0.348, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.78 to 0.33)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(51.58) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.06)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(57.34) = -1.44, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.50 to 0.24)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(48.64) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.05 to 2.50)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(49.92) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.73 to 0.89)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(50.91) = -1.52, p = 0.272, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.99 to 0.42)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(54.31) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.07)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(51.01) = 0.74, p = 0.921, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.48)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(53.57) = 0.71, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.20 to 2.52)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(52.52) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.54 to 2.44)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(52.62) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.39 to 1.44)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(54.89) = -1.69, p = 0.194, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.16)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(53.10) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.91)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(51.40) = 1.86, p = 0.137, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(51.09) = 0.92, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.87 to 2.33)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(49.98) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.41 to 3.66)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(51.94) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.37 to 1.60)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(51.67) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.36)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(51.34) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.13 to 2.73)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(65.37) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.59)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(54.68) = -0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.96)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(53.56) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.44)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(53.66) = -0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.10)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(50.53) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.07)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(58.55) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.95)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(52.02) = -1.18, p = 0.484, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.52 to 0.39)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(51.04) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.02)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(51.90) = -0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.02)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(50.18) = 1.81, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.92)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(49.79) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.49)
Plot
